4.1 Article

Bone geometry, bone mineral density, and micro-architecture in patients with myelofibrosis: a cross-sectional study using DXA, HR-pQCT, and bone turnover markers

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEMATOLOGY
卷 102, 期 1, 页码 67-75

出版社

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s12185-015-1803-3

关键词

Myelofibrosis; Bone structure; Bone geometry; Bone mineral density; Osteosclerosis; Bone turnover

资金

  1. Danish Cancer Society/Kraeftens bekaempelse [R90-A6062-14S29]
  2. Region of Southern Denmark [11/28457]
  3. The Danish Cancer Society [R90-A6062] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Primary myelofibrosis (MF) is a severe chronic myeloproliferative neoplasm, progressing towards a terminal stage with insufficient haematopoiesis and osteosclerotic manifestations. Whilst densitometry studies have showed MF patients to have elevated bone mineral density, data on bone geometry and micro-structure assessed with non-invasive methods are lacking. We measured areal bone mineral density (aBMD) using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Bone geometry, volumetric BMD, and micro-architecture were measured using high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT). We compared the structural parameters of bones by comparing 18 patients with MF and healthy controls matched for age, sex, and height. Blood was analysed for biochemical markers of bone turnover in patients with MF. There were no significant differences in measurements of bone geometry, volumetric bone mineral density, and micro-structure between MF patients and matched controls. Estimated bone stiffness and bone strength were similar between MF patients and controls. The level of pro-collagen type 1 N-terminal pro-peptide (P1NP) was significantly increased in MF, which may indicate extensive collagen synthesis, one of the major diagnostic criteria in MF. We conclude that bone mineral density, geometry, and micro-architecture in this cohort of MF patients are comparable with those in healthy individuals.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据